Black Ops II Screenshot Comparison is Totally As Expected

This shouldn’t really be surprising to many but, given that Black Ops II will probably be the year’s biggest release, it’s worth pointing out. Someone on the Beyond3D forum has posted a screenshot comparison that doesn’t cast the PlayStation 3 version in a great light. The 360 screen has notably more detail in the textures and the PS3 version is a little bit fuzzy.


Of course, screenshot comparisons are often a little pointless. We all know by now that over-aliasing and mild texture blur is a common occurrence on the PlayStation 3. Does that make the game any less enjoyable? Well, no, it’s barely noticeable unless you look at it right next to the sharper 360 screen. But it will irk the PlayStation fanboys that this late in the console’s life cycle – after so many utterly gorgeous looking PS3 games have appeared – they’re still suffering from this kind of issue.

It’s worth noting that the Call of Duty games have never been natively HD anyway, too. They always upscale, and generally look quite nice in doing so. We’re probably at least a year past the point when Activision would have assumed their flagship shooter would have been transitioning to the next generation of hardware too so perhaps we can hope for more parity between the big console manufacturers for next year’s Call of Duty release.

And, if you’re curious as to what Call of Duty might look like on the next generation of consoles, just wait until we start to see the slew of high-resolution PC screenshots.



  1. They look identical to me. Either way cod sucks

    • You might want to get your eyes checked.

  2. It’ll be interesting to see what the Wii U version is like too. Absolutely agree though that it’s an annoyance that these kind of problems are still occurring with cross-platform games on the PS3.

    • Apparently Wii U version is lovely, looking better than the 360 one.

      By some accounts the PS3 version is a mess – low res, frame rate stutters, bad transparency effects…

      • That sounds terrible and all, but (supposedly) it happens for a reason. It’s likely down to a poor port, but the issue with 60fps games is that the lag between SPU processing is great enough (again supposedly) to have a detrimental effect on control response, and so SPUs are not used fully in COD games, hence the performance issues. This could likely be fixed with a new engine, but I think we all know Activision will keep ahold of this ancient one for as long as possible…

      • More than what’s gone before… just about every multi-platform game, ever?

        These things only seem to be noticeable if they’re running side by side, if at all, to the human eye… rather than analysis software.

        For example, transparencies often look odd under analysis, but are fine in motion – even Killzone 3, with all the PS3 programming expertise (albeit half framerate of CoD with advantages that offers for amazing graphics) renders transparencies at 1/4qtr resolution… sounds awful in an internet comment, but affect in-game particularly whilst in motion? Probably non-existent.

        Texture detail has been an ongoing problem on PS3 since… forever, everything from GTAIV, Mafia2, RDR, Fallouts, AC … etc – Just about everything outside of Dante’s Inferno, which as far as I know is just about the only game which is reportedly as near identical as its possible to be.
        The number of multiplatform titles that have a ‘win’ for the PS3 is massively dwarfed by the opposite, even after all this time – as screen tearing of Dishonored and framerate slowdown of Borderlands 2 highlight.

  3. Everything I’ve read about the game sounds great, couldn’t care less.

    Loved BlOps and am disappointed it’s not still cold ware era, but the changes sound great.

    Ability to fail missions and the story with branching story lines, the more open areas rather than shooting down imaginary corridors, even down to choosing classes & loadouts in campaign not just multiplayer. The multiplayer changes & improvements sound good to.

    Sure it would be nice of the graphical fidelity matched the industry leading framerate, but it’s just not possible on these consoles.

    Bring it on!
    Although I need to beg, borrow or most likely steal some money from somewhere to get in this time around. :(

    • I have to say, after slating COD for a few years, this one actually looks interesting. The graphics don’t look any better than previous years, but the change of guns and especially gameplay on this one looks much better. Score streaks in particular look so much better and will not over load the matches and be match winners, thank god.

  4. Good thing COD is usually on offer every year. Wouldn’t pay £40 for COD.

  5. Put it next to(& any other FPS console game this Gen) ‘KillZone 2 & 3’ & it looks CR*P LoL:D

    • Not surprising seeing as they run at half-speed.

      CoD has prioritised fast gameplay, everyone else has prioritised some pixels & stuff.

      As to what people prefer… that’s down to the individual, but it’s hard to argue the most popular game has got it wrong. Next-gen CoD will need to pull something out of its sleeve though, as PC’s show other titles run at CoD’s framerate and have a higher level of graphical fidelity.

      errrm LoL;)

    • Stop being a fanboy. Please just stop it. Also, Haddock is better. COD is okay but Haddock is in top plaice.

      • You’re making me feel eel with these terrible puns

      • What a crabby pun.

  6. The only COD I like is the one you eat.

  7. The CoD haterzzzzzz are out! ;) iSnIPEezCoolBaNgYaMam and gang will be raging!….. :D

    • Surely if yourmumandme is banned that would be too ;)

      • Nope as Gtown’s jimmy savile account is still active. :O

    • God Mikey, you missed the “cool” letters. All CoD names should start and end like this:


      I’m very much looking forward to this CoD – zombies, the single player, and multiplayer in that order. No doubt I’ll manage 1 prestige but going by MW3, I can’t see myself dedicating too much time to multiplayer, not if your killstreak rewards are still pointless and can be taken down immediately. I’m just not too fussed about competitive multiplayer anymore, whatever the game, I’m more of a co-op kinda guy! ;)

  8. Seems like this wasn’t newsworthy as i don’t recall there being other screenshot comparison articles. Am probably wrong though. Also, i doubt anyone plays COD just for the graphics. ;) Predict it will smash records again. But where is the damn chips with chilly sauce DLC? You can’t have COD without chips. *is shot for that.*

  9. Doesn’t really look good on either console really, but COD was never about graphics anyway

  10. Lazy developers. CoD is one of the biggest IPs of the generation and after countless releases, it still looks like a launch-title. I loved CoD4, it was intuitive and daring, but the franchise has become a joke. I hope Activision will try to actually make a defining game out of it for next gen, like 4 was.

Comments are now closed for this post.